Hmm. Have to admit. From the beginning I questioned why the BBC seemed to be the target.

If the star broke the law. (And paying a 17yo for explicit pic def is). Then why the hell are the parents not calling the police.

If it's not illegal then as scummy as it may be. It's all consensual, adults make a choice.

As bad as I feel for younger people taken advantage of by older. The reason we have the 18 law. Is 18ys ha #ve a right to make their own choice. Good or bad ones.

No other employer would have the right or expectation to address a member of staff following the law. And the police would be involved if it's a crime. So why an attack on the BBC rather than a call to the police.

Why would a person, who was supposedly a crack addict, and was paid 10s of thousands of pounds by a person who likely groomed them, come out in defense of that person. Real puzzler this one.

I may have to redact my last post on this, considering the new allegation. Could be more 'rubbish', but possibly not. Seems like the BBC may have another one on their hands.

Surely the whole point of this story was to distract from the fact that today was the deadline for Boris to hand over his whatapp messages?

The Sun says: "We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child." "Their complaint was not acted upon by the BBC. We have seen evidence that supports their concerns. It’s now for the BBC to properly investigate."

That sounds pretty weak to me.

Detectives from the Met's Specialist Crime Command have now concluded their assessment and have determined there is no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed.

That says to me that either:

• The young person involved voluntarily sent images of themself to Edwards, and he either did not respond to them, or responded passively or properly

• The young person involved was solicited for messages, but no evidence to support this remains

• This entire thing is a cockamamie bullshit piece dreamed up by a set of parents who are Very Angry that their son is gay, and decided to take things to the press to hit back at him for asserting his sexuality.

There is, of course, the matter of the second allegation - but copycat cases also exist, and it is hard to say whether or not the Met's statement covers both allegations or merely the first.

It does confuse me, somewhat, that Edwards voluntarily offered his identity to the public. He was potentially entirely in the clear after the police statement, so he may either be considering the public interest angle (given he has worked in newscasting for a very long time), is attempting to curry public favour, or maybe just thinks its the right thing to do.

Problem with his revelation is the possibility of it being traced to the young person. It obviously sounds as though they want to remain anonymous and private - what are the chances of that happening now?